From: Steve Graham
Subject: What O'Reilly knows about Lisp - MUMPS and Forth
Date: 
Message-ID: <44bb1656-629d-439c-9ee9-c56bebc75034@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
For those who felt it necessary to make comments about the
unreadability of MUMPS and Forth, I wonder if you have ever programmed
in those languages.  I've spent almost 20 years with the former and
many with the latter and while each has its own peculiarities, neither
is that hard to master.  MUMPS is really like an abbreviated BASIC
with a database tacked on.  Forth, well Forth is like Forth.


Steve
From: llothar
Subject: Re: What O'Reilly knows about Lisp - MUMPS and Forth
Date: 
Message-ID: <aa3768a5-d26a-4fea-b57a-68e497915f5c@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 20, 5:48 am, Steve Graham <···················@gmail.com>
wrote:
> For those who felt it necessary to make comments about the
> unreadability of MUMPS and Forth, I wonder if you have ever programmed
> in those languages.  I've spent almost 20 years with the former and
> many with the latter and while each has its own peculiarities, neither
> is that hard to master.  MUMPS is really like an abbreviated BASIC
> with a database tacked on.  Forth, well Forth is like Forth.
>
> Steve

I programmed about 2 years in forth and yes i think it is very hard
to
read. Not total unreadable but close to it.
From: Mike G.
Subject: Re: What O'Reilly knows about Lisp - MUMPS and Forth
Date: 
Message-ID: <a9961b2c-6d0c-4dba-aaa2-33e9dfeb10a0@p69g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 19, 11:11 pm, llothar <·······@web.de> wrote:
> On Dec 20, 5:48 am, Steve Graham <···················@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > For those who felt it necessary to make comments about the
> > unreadability of MUMPS and Forth, I wonder if you have ever programmed
> > in those languages.  I've spent almost 20 years with the former and
> > many with the latter and while each has its own peculiarities, neither
> > is that hard to master.  MUMPS is really like an abbreviated BASIC
> > with a database tacked on.  Forth, well Forth is like Forth.
>
> > Steve
>
> I programmed about 2 years in forth and yes i think it is very hard
> to
> read. Not total unreadable but close to it.

Nonsense. Forth is just as readable as purely functional Lisp. If you
can't read it - you don't get it. Once the light turns on, you're
golden.
From: Daniel Weinreb
Subject: Re: What O'Reilly knows about Lisp - MUMPS and Forth
Date: 
Message-ID: <Khuaj.28856$JW4.782@trnddc05>
Steve Graham wrote:
> For those who felt it necessary to make comments about the
> unreadability of MUMPS and Forth, I wonder if you have ever programmed
> in those languages.  I've spent almost 20 years with the former and
> many with the latter and while each has its own peculiarities, neither
> is that hard to master.  MUMPS is really like an abbreviated BASIC
> with a database tacked on.  Forth, well Forth is like Forth.
> 
> 
> Steve

Do you have any experience with Cache, InterSystems's object-oriented
database system, which as I understand is generally used with MUMPS?
I've heard that it's very fast and otherwise generally A Good Thing
but I don't know any technical details.  Thank you.
From: Steve Graham
Subject: Re: What O'Reilly knows about Lisp - MUMPS and Forth
Date: 
Message-ID: <949eb080-a2dc-4172-bde3-60359d1a6d7c@r60g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>
On Dec 20, 6:40 am, Daniel Weinreb <····@alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> Do you have any experience with Cache, InterSystems's object-
> oriented database system, which as I understand is generally used
> with MUMPS?
> I've heard that it's very fast and otherwise generally A Good
> Thing but I don't know any technical details.  Thank you.

Daniel,

Yes, I have experience with Caché.  It is a superset of MUMPS, with
much faster database access, an object system, and more open access to
the world and other programming languages.


Steve
comp.lang.lisp / 2007 / dec